Patient Experiences of Postinfectious Olfactory Dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

To highlight the importance of the need for new treatment modalities, this study aimed to characterise the experience of patients with postinfectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD) in terms of the treatment they received.

METHODS

An online survey was hosted by the Norwich Clinical Trials Unit on the secure REDCap server. Members of the charity Fifth Sense (the UK charity that represents and supports people affected by smell and taste disorders) were invited to participate.

RESULTS

There were 149 respondents, of whom 127 had identified themselves as having (or had) PIOD. The age range of respondents to the survey was 28-85 years, with a mean of 58 ± 12 years, with the duration of their disorder <5 years in 63% of cases. Respondents reported experiencing variable treatment with oral and/or intranasal steroids given typically (28%), often with no benefit, but with 50% receiving no treatment whatsoever; only 3% reported undertaking olfactory training. Over two-thirds of patients experience parosmia and, up to 5 years from the onset of the problem, were still actively seeking a solution.

CONCLUSION

There appears to be a need to encourage greater use of guidelines for olfactory disorders amongst medical practitioners and also to develop more effective treatments for patients with PIOD, where there is clearly an unmet need.

Clinical Olfactory Working Group consensus statement on the treatment of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Respiratory tract viruses are the second most common cause of olfactory dysfunction. As we learn more about the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), with the recognition that olfactory dysfunction is a key symptom of this disease process, there is a greater need than ever for evidence-based management of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD).

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to provide an evidence-based practical guide to the management of PIOD (including post-coronavirus 2019 cases) for both primary care practitioners and hospital specialists.

METHODS

A systematic review of the treatment options available for the management of PIOD was performed. The written systematic review was then circulated among the members of the Clinical Olfactory Working Group for their perusal before roundtable expert discussion of the treatment options. The group also undertook a survey to determine their current clinical practice with regard to treatment of PIOD.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 467 citations, of which 107 articles were fully reviewed and analyzed for eligibility; 40 citations fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 11 of which were randomized controlled trials. In total, 15 of the articles specifically looked at PIOD whereas the other 25 included other etiologies for olfactory dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

The Clinical Olfactory Working Group members made an overwhelming recommendation for olfactory training; none recommended monocycline antibiotics. The diagnostic role of oral steroids was discussed; some group members were in favor of vitamin A drops. Further research is needed to confirm the place of other therapeutic options.

Treatment of post-viral olfactory dysfunction: an evidence-based review with recommendations

Background

Post‐viral olfactory dysfunction (PVOD) is one of the most common causes of olfactory loss. Despite its prevalence, optimal treatment strategies remain unclear. This article provides a comprehensive review of PVOD treatment options and provides evidence‐based recommendations for their use.

Methods

A systematic review of the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases was completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies with defined olfactory outcomes of patients treated for PVOD following medical, surgical, acupuncture, or olfactory training interventions were included. The Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual and Conference on Guideline Standardization (COGS) instrument recommendations were followed in accordance with a previously described, rigorous, iterative process to create an evidence‐based review with recommendations.

Results

From 552 initial candidate articles, 36 studies with data for 2183 patients with PVOD were ultimately included. The most common method to assess olfactory outcomes was Sniffin’ Sticks. Broad treatment categories included: olfactory training, systemic steroids, topical therapies, a variety of heterogeneous non‐steroidal oral medications, and acupuncture.

Conclusion

Based on the available evidence, olfactory training is a recommendation for the treatment of PVOD. The use of short‐term systemic and/or topical steroids is an option in select patients after careful consideration of potential risks of oral steroids. Though some pharmacological investigations offer promising preliminary results for systemic and topical medications alike, a paucity of high‐quality studies limits the ability to make meaningful evidence‐based recommendations for the use of these therapies for the treatment of PVOD.

Short-Course Pentoxifylline Is Not Effective in Post-Traumatic Smell Loss: A Pilot Study

It has been suggested that systemic pentoxifylline may be beneficial in the treatment of olfactory dysfunction. The postulated mechanism of action involves nonselective competitive phosphodiesterase inhibition, leading to increased intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate and consequent increased olfactory neuron activity. This should in theory lead to improved olfactory function. We describe a pilot case series from our tertiary referral center of patients treated with oral pentoxifylline for olfactory dysfunction. Six patients with post-traumatic impairment who were treated with systemic pentoxifylline were included. Patients were treated with 200 mg of oral prolonged release pentoxifylline, 3 times a day for 21 days. Olfactory function was tested pre and post-treatment for odor threshold (T), discrimination (D), identification (I) and composite 'TDI' score using a psychophysical test battery, the "Sniffin' Sticks." Oral pentoxifylline was well tolerated and all patients completed the treatment period. There was a small improvement in odor threshold and identification scores, but these did not reach statistical or clinical significance. There were deteriorations in discrimination and composite TDI score, which did not reach significance. While our case series was small, systemic pentoxifylline did not appear to be beneficial in the treatment of hyposmia in this patient group.

Anosmia-A Clinical Review

Anosmia and hyposmia, the inability or decreased ability to smell, is estimated to afflict 3-20% of the population. Risk of olfactory dysfunction increases with old age and may also result from chronic sinonasal diseases, severe head trauma, and upper respiratory infections, or neurodegenerative diseases. These disorders impair the ability to sense warning odors in foods and the environment, as well as hinder the quality of life related to social interactions, eating, and feelings of well-being. This article reports and extends on a clinical update commencing at the 2016 Association for Chemoreception Sciences annual meeting. Included were reports from: a patient perspective on losing the sense of smell with information on Fifth Sense, a nonprofit advocacy organization for patients with olfactory disorders; an otolaryngologist's review of clinical evaluation, diagnosis, and management/treatment of anosmia; and researchers' review of recent advances in potential anosmia treatments from fundamental science, in animal, cellular, or genetic models. As limited evidence-based treatments exist for anosmia, dissemination of information on anosmia-related health risks is needed. This could include feasible and useful screening measures for olfactory dysfunction, appropriate clinical evaluation, and patient counseling to avoid harm as well as manage health and quality of life with anosmia.

A randomised controlled trial of sodium citrate spray for non-conductive olfactory disorders

OBJECTIVES

Previous research has suggested that sodium citrate improves hyposmia by decreasing mucus calcium levels in the nose. This study aimed to confirm or refute this effect in a single application and assess potential side-effects.

DESIGN

Study design was a randomised double-blind controlled trial of sodium citrate nasal spray (intervention) vs sterile water (control). Fifty-five patients with non-conductive olfactory loss were randomised to receive the intervention or placebo.

SETTING

Tertiary care clinic.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was improvement in measured olfactory thresholds for phenyl ethyl alcohol (PEA) over 2 hours. Other outcome measures assessed were improvement in olfactory thresholds in 1-butanol, eucalyptol and acetic acid; number of responders with a clinically relevant response in each arm; and adverse effects.

RESULTS

A significant effect was seen in the intervention arm for PEA and for 1-butanol and eucalyptol when compared to the control arm (P<.05); 32% of the intervention arm responded in terms of improved sensitivity towards some of the odours. Minor adverse effects noted included sore throat, nasal paraesthesia, slight rhinorrhoea and itching. The duration of effect of the citrate is transient, peaking at 30-60 minutes after application.

CONCLUSIONS

Sodium citrate yields some potential as a treatment for non-conductive olfactory loss; however, these findings require corroboration in further clinical trials looking at longer term regular use of the spray as a viable therapeutic option for patients where it would be applied at frequent intervals such as before mealtimes.